VARIETT
125
The Rukeyser Imbroglio
It
is
a symptom of the current
collapse of decency that a maga–
zine as meaningful, on the whole,
as the PARTISAN R.Evmw could
print in its fall issue the piece en–
titled "Grandeur and Misery of a
Poster Girl." In the very same is–
sue, apropos of the
school
of
rude–
ness,
these words appeared: "The
exquisite aristocratic tact which
subtly specified the circumstances
under which things could be called
by their right names is today some–
thing we know about largely from
books, not from anybody's public
behavior."
J.
am grateful for the
assurance that we can now call a
spade a spade; for
~bile
I do not
claim to be endowed with exquisite
aristocratic tact, I do not ordinarily
like to refer to the verbal efforts
of my fellow-writers as "incredible
vulgarity," or "vicious distortion,"
or "stupid malice." But in this case
the performance in question has al–
ready specified, and none too
subtly, the circumstances under
which it can be called by these
very names.
The "incredible vulgarity" with
which this comment on Muriel
Rukeyser is drenched is of course
a direct outgrowth of its "vicious
distortion." And this, I am forced
to conclude, was dictated by
"stupid malice." For if there were
any real truth, or consistent critical
justice, in this outburst, one could
forgive the tone. And it is hard to
see, in the light of the actual facts,
how anyone who was
not
animated
by "stupid malice" could fail to
treat Muriel Rukeyser's work with
some real seriousness, regard for
truth, and critical justice-even
though he might disagree with her
viewpoint, and perhaps find it im–
perfectly articulate. But it seems
that the author (or authors?) of
~this
\Outburst had some grace-–
some remaining capacity to blush;
for the piece is the only thing in
the magazine which is unsigned.
(It is hard to believe that R.P.S.
could refer to the editors of so
responsible a publication, and I do
not believe it.)
I am not primarily concerned to
defend Miss Rukeyser's work. She
is young, vital, and an indubitable
talent-a formidable talent. Yet it
is necessary to point out that this
attack is not directed against her
work so much as it is against her
motives, her intellectual and so–
cial integrity; the implication
throughout is that she is a shifty
opportunist. True--like scores of
other artists and intellectuals, she
has sympathized with the left, and
used social material and working–
class themes in some of her works;
true--she has likewise groped for
symbols for the buried life; true
also-her more ambitious pieces
have often failed to achieve that
unity of thought, image, and pas–
sion which is the mark of the very
greatest poetry; true--she has been
very much interested in the "time–
ly" as well as the timeless. It is
also true that she has lectured and
written about the creative spirit;
that she has seen that there
are
relationships of the most exciting
sort between poetry, science, and–
yes--even mysticism; and that as a
responsible intellectual as well as
poet she has always been concerned
with "meanings." It is even true-–
believe it or not-that a person
